Just for kicks, I looked through the TU’s archives for images of other McDonald’s designs. The first image is from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Don’t think that one would work in our chilly climate.

The second is a classic from the Buffalo area. The third image is the flat, brown-roofed McD’s we all remember; this one is (or at least was) in Schenectady. And the final shot, via tripadvisor, is of the famously attractive McDonald’s in Freeport, Maine. Thoughts?

Also to note.. the one in Kinderhook/Valatie has Blue Wooden siding with grey shingles on the roof.. a cross between the freeport one and the schenectady one.. it’s still a McD’s, but better than the usual..

For crying out loud it’s a McDonald’s people. They are everywhere. Worldwide. Are we really so surprised and put off that they want to put one in the city of Troy who doesn’t already have one anywhere?
How many Stewart’s Shops don’t look aesthetocally correct to you?

Well there you have it. Another stupid one-story throwaway building in the Trojan automobile slum.

This building could have active, revenue-generating second and third stories that could include an office or an apartment.

Apartments above retail used to be how we did “affordable housing” in America.* But we’re too stupid to do it that way any more. So now our governments are actually spending money to build affordable housing projects…because they’ve discouraged affordable housing from existing organically…like above the McDonald’s.

We have a punitive taxing system for real estate in this country that ends up discouraging people from building magnificent buildings with multiple revenue-generating stories.

We incentivize McDonalds and every other business to put up the crappiest buildings possible to keep their tax bill down. And we discourage owners from making any improvements to their buildings by raising their taxes based on those improvements.

A 19th century reformer named Henry George proposed a better way of taxing real estate, based on the location and civic value of the plot…rather than on the value of the building itself.

Under his system, it wouldn’t matter whether you put up a crappy one-story packing crate or a magnificent five-story palazzo, or the Troy Savings Bank Music Hall… they would all be taxed the same, based on the value of their site.

That system would create a huge incentive to put up great buildings, with the greatest ability to generate rents and value.

(*I happen to live in a mixed use building with a business on the first floor, by the way. So I’m not prescribing anything I don’t do myself. And I don’t feel like this is a punishing way to live. In fact I find it very rewarding and affordable.)

could you add a little more detail – ie: where are the access points in – especially in relation to the streets – 15th, hoosick, turning lanes , also how it relates to the tractor trailer entrance behind troy plaza with entrance on hoosick/behind friendly’s?
where will it face?

I’m confused how the land rent system would be hospitable to affordable housing. If I’m understanding it correctly, developers would be encouraged to build more expensive buildings in the more valuable areas so they could afford the higher taxes that run with the land (i.e., build buildings “with the greatest ability to generate rent and value”). I don’t think affordable housing would fit into the category of uses that would generate the “greatest” rent.

I don’t find it offensive, but I would much prefer one that looked like the one in Maine! As for a three-story building with apartments above it, sounds good in theory. However, who wants to live above a McDonalds that will likely be open late? All you’d ever smell is french fries! Who could sleep….

>>I don’t think affordable housing would fit into the category of uses that would generate the “greatest” rent.<<

Of course it would. There's only so much money you're going to rake in for an apartment directly above a McDonald's. It's not a French bakery…it's a french fry pit! So the greatest possible rent here would end up being affordable…it might even make a good place for one of the McDonald's employees below. Who knows.

Regardless of the taxing system, If someone wanted to develop a mixed-use project (assuming they understood the inherent complexities and added costs vs. a single-use project) they could conceivably fund a portion of it with tax credits and make it affordable. But, nobody is speculating on non tax credit affordable apartment projects…much less inherently much more complex mixed-use affordable apartment/McDonald’s projects…much less the aforementioned in a great looking building. These affordable projects arent happening organically (i.e., within an unobstructed free market) because they’re inherently expensive, difficult to finance and risky. Doesnt matter if you’re over a McDonald’s or a French bakery.

This is status of affordable apartment development in the best case, on a ubiquitous parcel on Hoosick St. Take this scenario to the most highly coveted parcels downtown and the obstacles are exaserbated by higher land values (regardless of taxing system). Just look north to Saratoga Springs and witness the convergence of retail and housing with stingent zoning to ensure the greatness of the fascades. Hasnt done much for affordable housing development over the past 20 years.

Will be interesting to see if the Troy City Hall proposal w/ 100 units has an affordable component. Would be prudent if the developer is getting any sort of public subsidy.

The McDonald’s in Watervliet is a perfect example of how these buildings are throwaways … they recently razed the old building completely and put up a brand new one in its place. Doesn’t that just seem … odd? They don’t even want their own buildings after a while. This latest design isn’t different from the the old one in that sense. It too will outlive it’s usefulness.

I’m not opposed to a McDonald’s on Hoosick Street. I’d just like to see something worth holding onto for more than a couple of decades. Something that’s aware that it’s in Troy, NY, not Anywhere, USA. That’s all.

>>These affordable projects arent happening organically (i.e., within an unobstructed free market) because they’re inherently expensive, difficult to finance and risky. Doesnt matter if you’re over a McDonald’s or a French bakery. <<

Look at lower New Scotland in Albany. There's a new Stewart's with either apartments or offices (or both, I can't remember) above it. This isn't rocket science.

We managed to do this from the dawn of civilization until about 1946…even when we were a far less affluent society.

The last thing you want to do with "affordable housing" is cram a bunch of poor people into some cheap housing project ghetto. The project of concentrating poverty has proven to be a colossal failure. Suburbia — which is another monoculture — is proving to be a failure too.

What type of living arrangement does that leave? Good urban fabric, which includes multi-story, mixed use buildings (i.e. apartments and offices above McDonald's, etc).

Duncan has a great idea for the property, so I suggest he build it. That property has been vacant for how many years now? I truly have no idea, but I know it has been years, seems if there was interest in building a brownstone there, somebody would have. Bravo to McDonald’s for looking to invest in Troy. In this economy it is nice to see somebody is still growing their business.

I like mixed-use, I like new-urbanism. What I’m saying is that these neat projects are almost always cost prohibitive to affordable housing (unless they’re subsidized). The Park South project is tapping numerous state and federal agencies for housing assistance funds (and only time will tell if the planned affordable units are enough to offset the displaced residents and planned gentrification of the corridor). If you want to say this project isn’t rocket science you’re simply ignoring the past and present reality of what it took to get that project off the ground. It IS rocket science even with the benefit of MAJOR political and financial backing…something most projects don’t have. These things simply aren’t as simple (or affordable) as you’d like them to be.

>>Duncan has a great idea for the property, so I suggest he build it. <<

I've made it clear in other comments that I live in what can be described as traditional "affordable housing" (a small apartment above a downtown business). I run my own consulting business here in Troy and spend nearly every dime I have in this town.

But I certainly don't have enough scratch to build any new property here.

However, I hope you don't interpret that to mean that I (or anyone else in my situation) have no business expressing my opinions on how our city should be built-up and maintained.

When we share our opinions on something like how McDonald's could better develop this property, we are contributing to something called a "community consensus." The greatest streets and buildings in Troy were all created before we had a planning department or zoning codes or anything resembling a design review board.

One of the reasons why a 19th century business wouldn't slap up a one-story piece of junk building like McDonald's is that the community consensus wouldn't allow for it. Right now, Americans don't have a very solid consensus about what is OK and what is not OK in their built environment.

So everyone should be encouraged to share their opinion on how they feel our city streets should be shaped. Just because McDonald's is allegedly the first business to want to develop that property doesn't mean the community should just let them build whatever they want.

That lot and that building may be private. But they belongs to a larger thing called "the public realm."

>>What I’m saying is that these neat projects are almost always cost prohibitive to affordable housing (unless they’re subsidized). <<

If a subsidy (or some similar incentive) is what it takes — during this anomalous period of history — to get a McDonald's franchise to put an affordable apartment or office on the second or third floor, then so be it.

I'd rather see my local, state and federal governments subsidize that kind of project rather than another doomed monoculture housing project ghetto.

But the developer isn't asking for any subsidies to put a second or third floor on their building, is he/her? Because the public consensus isn't clamoring for it.

Maybe people don't realize there's another way of doing things. Maybe they think that the way we've been doing things for the past 40 years is the only way of doing things. But isn't.

Maybe these other ways of doing things (the traditional ways) will become self-evident as our country becomes more and more broke at all levels and the price of everything …including fuel…rises.

I can see the public clamoring for some nice, multi-story, mixed-use downtown (where land is scarce)…on Hoosick next to the Popeye’s, not so much. And I don’t think its because people don’t know any better. I think its because most people would rather live in a modest garden apartment a block off Hoosick as opposed to a second floor apartment over a McDonald’s on Hoosick. Not to mention the garden apt is going to be cheaper to build and more affordable to rent. I know aesthetically it doesn’t seem so, but most older, suburban, commercial strips in the area (Hoosick, Central Ave., Western Ave., Delaware Ave. etc.) are actually viable mixed-use areas that serve all the purposes of Traditional Neighborhood Design without a multitude of multi-story, mixed-use buildings. The store is on the strip and a grid of 1/4 acre – 1/8 acre homes and small apartments are behind. New Urbanists need to make a distinction between older first tier suburbs and areas on the urban fringe (that will continue to function well entering an era of higher fuel prices) and far-flung McMansions on two acre lots.

>>I think its because most people would rather live in a modest garden apartment a block off Hoosick as opposed to a second floor apartment over a McDonald’s on Hoosick. Not to mention the garden apt is going to be cheaper to build and more affordable to rent. <<

A lot of people probably would prefer not to live above a McDonald's. In theory, I don't think I would want to either. But the fact is that people do live above McDonald's (and other fast food restaurants) all over the world.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that more than a few of them are perfectly happy with the arrangement.

But we'll never know with this particular Mickie D's will we?

I happen to think that circumstances are changing so that we will no longer be able to occupy the land the way we have been doing so for the last 60 years or so. I happen to think that we are going to have to use land and energy more deliberately in the future.

But even if we had endless planets and endless energy at our disposal…

The best, most stimulating, successful, beautiful, exciting human habits on Earth are the dense, tight, walkable, mixed use ones.

You can go ahead and argue against that point strenuously if you want. You can dismiss it as a subjective argument about "aesthetics" or personal preferences if you want.

But even the most hyper-individualistic, car-happy, sprawl-equals-freedom suburbanites know this to be true deep down inside, because they fork over their hard earned cash every year to vacation in these places in Europe, Canada, South America, etc. They go to college in these places and they love them. Etc.

Even Disney World mimics the concept of tight urban fabric (though it's a distorted version with a giant corporate monster behind the mask).

We should clarify that Duncan meant “in his own experience” cities are the best. And that people living on farms or in rural villages or cookie cutter subdivisions are perfectly justified in believing their environs are the best for their own personal circumstance and perhaps even a better and more secure environment moving forward in uncertain times.